Environmental protection: A continuing challenge

What do flying fox bats, hawkbill turtles and Aetas of Pastolan Village have in common? One is that they are found in Subic Bay Freeport. Two, they are all part of a giant “web of life” that local environmentalists work so hard to protect and care for.
The task of protecting the diverse but fragile ecosystems in the former US Naval base in Subic began in 1992 when r.a. 7227 or the Bases Conversion Act was enacted to convert Subic Bay into a commercial and industrial port. In July of the same year, Proclamation 926 was signed to delineate the metes and bounds of the Freeport. The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority was given the mandate of managing the area to spur growth not only in the localities affected by the termination of the base lease agreement but in the whole Central Luzon as well. The strategic location of the freeport and its natural deep harbor gave it a competitive edge over other ports in the country. This favored the rapid development of Subic, but also compounded the threat to the rich natural resources in the area.
Embraced on one side by 12,000 hectares of marine waters and bounded in the other by 10,000 hectares of forest land, the Subic Bay Freeport was declared as one of the ten priority sites (Subic-Bataan Natural Park) among the protected areas in the Philippines because of its high biological diversity.
With some 67,452 hectares of the freeport zone are forested mountains, mangrove swamps, coral reefs, sea-grass beds and other ecosystems of vast ecological significance. In the 10,000-hectare Subic Watershed Forest Reserve alone, experts have identified 745 plant species belonging to 429 genera and 122 families. The reserve is also home to 201 fish species and 122 animal species, including 12 classified as rare and 25 as endangered.

Balancing development and environment
Recognizing development as potential threat to the survival of natural resources, the SBMA took on the challenge of balancing development and environmental protection by formulating the Subic Bay Protected Area Management Plan (PAMP), with funding from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). The plan, contained in eight volumes, was two years in the making and underwent several focus group discussions to tackle specific concerns, as well as five major consultations among the stakeholders that included local government units (LGUs), Freeport locators, non-government organizations (NGOs), various national agencies and more importantly, the indigenous people of Subic.
The PAMP divided the freeport into management zones and classified both allowed and disallowed activities per zone. Prior to zoning, resource inventory and ecological profiling were conducted. The management zones, both the marine and terrestrial, were determined on the basis of the ecological value of the biodiversity of an area. The Subic Bay PAMP worked on the framework that the linkages and development of the flora and fauna extend beyond the core zone (strict protection zone.) It also acknowledged the importance of the external land use and the socioeconomic setting as critical to the maintenance and protection of the Subic Bay environment. Under the PAMP, these areas were designated as buffer zones.

Threats from within and without
While the SBMA is determined to pre serve the natural resources, the harsh realities of poverty and lack of access to resources and livelihood opportunities among communities within and around the zone continue to undermine efforts for protection and conservation. Dynamite and cyanide fishing, trawling, kaingin (slash-and-burn farming) and charcoal-making , poaching and encroachment in the Freeport’s fenced area remain.
The story of Mang Ben and Mang Ato, both Aetas from the nearby community of Iram in Olongapo City, is an example of the critical aspect of poverty that is worth looking into. When the two were caught with six pairs of Colasisi bird trapped from the forest inside the zone, they admitted that it is not good for the forest inside the zone, but reasoned out that they have no recourse but to catch and sell the wild birds because they don’t have any other source of income. Mang Ben added that it was better than stealing money from people.
Mang Basti is a classic case of a fisherfolk who lost two fingers to dynamite fishing but still insists on using this method for easier and more catch. Although he fishes in the coastal waters of Subic town, his activity contributes to the destruction of water quality and resource in the entire Subic Bay.

Promoting stakeholder cooperation
The SBMA has long recognized that the sustainable developments of natural resources under its management could best be undertaken with the cooperation of stakeholders with the Subic Bay community.
With this, the SBMA sought to promote and institutionalize cooperation agreements among the stakeholders and initiated the formulation of an Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council (IFARMC). The council is composed of LGUs, NGOs and POC in the coastal areas of the Subic Bay, the SBMA, the Philippine Maritime Service and the Coast Guard. The primary objective of this project is the creation of an integrated policy and system for the protection of the bay. Toward this end, members of the Subic Bay IFARMC sit in four vital task-groups, legal and policy committee, livelihood committee, information and education committee, and resource mobilization and research committee.
On another, stakeholder cooperation scheme, the SBMA has embarked on the so-called “Social Fencing” project. This project is a subcomponent of the Perimeter Fencing project which primarily aims for the security and protection of the Subic Freeport secured area. The Social Fencing project, founded on a framework consistent with the PAMP that “communities are partners in the conservation of efforts of the SBMA,” is an alternative to physical fencing of areas where there are existing communities. The strategy is to engage local communities in securing the vulnerable portions of the SBFZ perimeter by providing incentives to partner communities in exchange for protection from encroachment and degradation of the Freeport environment…these are just some of the initial efforts of the SBMA in working toward sustainable development for the Freeport in the framework of balancing the economic, environmental and social aspects of development. Knowing fully well that the advancement of the communities within and outside the Freeport is an integral part in the pursuit of its mandate, the SBMA continues with its task of protecting the environment and leaving a sustainable legacy to future generations. Amethya Dela Llana

Amethya Dela Llana- Kuval, a former college instructor and community organizer, is at present the manager of the SBMA Ecology department. She brought the same zealous activism and commitment to community welfare when she joined the SBMA in 2001.